Hardliners' sabotage of reconciliation is no accident

The restriction of Iraq contracts to coalition members is all about internal US power struggles.

James Baker sets off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with the United States' estranged allies. At that very moment the Deputy Secretary of Defence releases a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language.

Maybe I'm giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don't think this was mere incompetence. The Administration's hardliners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.

Surely this wasn't just about reserving contracts for Administration cronies.

There are deeper motives here.

Wolfowitz's official rationale for the contract policy is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and in future efforts" - future efforts? - and "should encourage the continued co-operation of coalition members". Translation: We can bribe other nations to send troops.

But I doubt whether even Wolfowitz believes that. The last year, from the failure to get UN approval for the war to the retreat over steel tariffs, has been one long lesson in the limits of US economic leverage. Wolfowitz knows that allies who could provide useful help won't be swayed by a few contracts.

If the contracts don't provide leverage, however, why torpedo potential reconciliation with the allies of the US? Perhaps because Wolfowitz's faction doesn't want reconciliation.

These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes.

Instead, the venture has turned sour - and many insiders see Baker's mission as part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hardliners' clutches.

Blow-ups by the hardliners, just when the conciliators seem to be getting somewhere, have been a pattern. In August, it seemed Colin Powell had finally convinced Bush it made sense to negotiate with North Korea. But then John Bolton, the under-secretary of state for arms control, gave a speech about Kim Jong-il, declaring: "To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants."

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups regaining control of US foreign policy. Initial signs are the ploy is working - the hawks have again tapped into Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations.

"It's very simple," Bush said on Thursday. "Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. The contracting is going to reflect that."

In the end the Bush doctrine - based on delusions about the US's ability to dominate the world by force - will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty its proponents will fight against the inevitable.